4.1 Article

Reliability of leaf relative water content (RWC) measurements after storage: consequences for in situ measurements

期刊

BOTANY
卷 93, 期 9, 页码 535-541

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/cjb-2015-0065

关键词

field measurement; plant water status; relative water content

资金

  1. Collaborative Research and Development grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Vale Canada Ltd.
  3. Centre for Excellence in Mining Innovation [CRDPJ 372568-08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Relative water content (RWC) is widely used to describe plant water status, and is commonly measured gravimetrically. The ephemeral nature of leaf fresh mass poses severe constraints for such measurements in field-grown plants. These constraints can be overcome by transporting the leaves in waterproof containers into the lab. However, even then, leaves lose water, and other changes may happen. The effects of a delay on the measurement of RWC have not been quantified so far. In this study, the influence of duration of storage up to 96 h and storage temperature on RWC and its components was investigated for four species. Alnus incana subsp. rugosa (Du Roi) R.T. Clausen, Impatiens capensis Meerb., and Scirpus microcarpus J. Presl & C. Presl leaves were stored in plastic bags, whereas those of Comptonia peregrina (L.) J.M. Coult. were stored in plastic vials. RWC remained within 5% of the initial value during 24 h cool storage, but after that, larger changes were observed. The effects of storage were species specific, being most pronounced in species poorly protected against desiccation, and under warm conditions. The effects of storage were not only limited to water loss, but also included cellular degradation. In general, storage at 10 degrees C for 24 h enables measurement of RWC for field-grown plants with accuracy of a few percent, but care has to be taken with species vulnerable to desiccation, possibly requiring faster measurement and a cooler storage temperature.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据